Can anyone refute this? My brain exploded when I read it.

Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Can anyone refute this? My brain exploded when I read it.

The materialists/atheists in society have attempted to convince themselves and others that humans are the end result of a long string of randomness culled by a selection. Ultimately this means humans got here as lucky accidents and, contrary to what the Bible says, were not created with love from a Divne, supernatural Creator. This, of course, is based on the evolutionist premise that animals evolved by way of random physical changes. But what if physical changes aren't random?

When I first started debating evolution I argued that getting a tan, for instance, was not a random biological change, and thus, evolution was falsified. The evolutionist reply, of course, was that getting a tan is not evolution because there was no inheritance of this tan on behalf of progeny. So I set out to dig up scientific examples of such inheritance. I knew these scientific experiments had to exist that tested the premise of animals passing on life’s experiences to their offspring. To my shock, disgust and amazement there were none. Not even one. How could science not even test this? It would be so simple!

Regardless if pigmentation can be directly passed on or not, It became clear that the Big science was hiding something; a terrible secret…the secret every biologist certainly knew but never dared mention: epigenetic inheritance of life's experiences was a reality.

Richard Dawkins:

"I use the word “scare” because, to be painfully honest, I can think of few things that would more devastate my world view than a demonstrated need to return to the theory of evolution that is traditionally attributed to lamarck. It is one of the few contingencies for which I might offer to eat my hat." Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype.

oops....

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov...tart:int=1&-C=


To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations.


This brings a painful reality for materialists and evolutionists. Of course many deny this reality by saying it doesn’t contradict Darwinism, however, it absolutely does for the following reasons:

1) It shows the non-physical creates the physical. (By non-physical, I don’t care if this means “of the mind,” “mental,” “spiritual,” “mystical,” or whatever else. The point is that the physical is created and manipulated by a non-physical entity residing in each organism.)

2) It shows the non-physical codes the information in the DNA structure. (Everyone wondered where the information that resides in DNA comes from….now we know.)

3.) It shows that the non-physical is the unit of inheritance. It’s these non-physical signals that code the genetic states that get passed on from generation to generation. This, of course, is blasphomy 101 for the evolutionist….but have you ever wondered why kids often come out looking and acting like their parents and grandparents? It’s because they are simply the physical seed that’s been encoded by their parent’s non-physical mental, emotional and spiritual signals.

4) It shows there is no need for natural selection for new traits to spread throughout a population; that evolution happens horizontally before it happens vertically.

5) It shows a new or mutated gene is not necessary for the emergence and inheritance of new traits.

6) It shows the whole manipulates and controls its parts. Materialists say all evolution happens as a result of random alterations of genetic structure; that accidental changes in parts create new and different wholes….in reality it’s the purposeful and intellectual processes of wholes that creates new and different parts. This flips everything about biology on its head -- including the fossil record; it turns a process that would take millions of years into a process that takes a blink of an eye.

7) It backs up The Bible and Genesis by showing humans – and every other animal -- got here not by way of millions of years of physical accidents, but instead, instantly, as a result of special creation by way of a non-physical, intellectual reality.

 

 

 

 

 

Dumbest thing I've ever read. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
It doesn't describe the

It doesn't describe the theory of evolution, so how can it hope to refute it? Oh, and the alternate theory is biblical? Pfft. Gimme a break.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
refutation

The error is here:

Quote:
It shows the non-physical creates the physical.

This conclusion does not follow logically from the findings of epigenetics. The rest of the argument falls apart when this premise is shown to be invalid.

Epigenetics, as described in the Discover article (link is broken btw) talks about how the environment can cause a gene to turn on or off. It's still the physical effect of the environment acting on the physical structures of the DNA.  The new finding is that the *expression* of the gene can cross generations without actually changing the genetic structure.  You still can't think yourself darker skin, and it's definitely not evidence of a magic man controlling your hair color.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Thanks a ton.

Thanks a ton.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Exactly.  He just

Exactly.  He just straw-manned his way to his list of conclusions by asserting "the non-physical".

 

He even tried to preclude the obvious error in this by stating "By non-physical, I don’t care if this means “of the mind,” “mental,” “spiritual,” “mystical,” or whatever else. The point is that the physical is created and manipulated by a non-physical entity residing in each organism"

 

Now, if you reference the original article nowhere does it mention a "non-physical entity residing in each organism".


Bullocks.  He is making shit up and he has proved nothing, demonstrated nothing, and like so many creationists before him, just blustered his way thru science. This is so bad that he is   probably eligilbe to get an award from answersingenesis.

 

 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
That still isn't lamarckian

That still isn't lamarckian evolution. The environment is acting on the genes (AKA: mutation). And those genes are inhereted by the next generation. It's still natural selection.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Here's the link: There were

Here's the link: There were a couple of extra symbols in the original:

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover

As far as the fleas go, that bespeaks of natural selection in and of itself. One should expect the effect to last for generations until a different predator found its way around it. Then there would be a different type that perhaps bred faster than the one with the alteration.

I don't quite know where they got the idea that evolutionary biologists said that "Even after the principles of epigenetics came to light, it was believed that methylation marks and other epigenetic changes to a parent's DNA were lost during the process of cell division that generates eggs and sperm and that only the gene sequence remained. In effect, it was thought, germ cells wiped the slate clean for the next generation."

Ummmm. Nooooo. In fact, during gestation and subsequently nursing phases of mammalian development pass on some immunities to diseases and hormones that can significantly change the way the genes are read. Duh!! Whomever they got this idea of using the term 'wiped the slate clean' in the article needs to go back to school or read.

The person numbering their arguments using this obviously read only the pieces which didn't get too involved with the actual study of epigenetics and possible applications of it in the future of eugenics.

Somebody give that person a Punnett square and explain 'sport' to them. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
randomness culled by a

randomness culled by a selection

 

Random, and selection.

 

Hmm.. sounds a bit oxymoronic.

Considering this whole thing is moronic. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
What you posted, Maragon,

What you posted, Maragon, has several quite big flaws.

1. "Ultimately this means humans got here as lucky accidents" - there've been a zillion answers that evolution is NOT RANDOM, and it will take, probably, zillion zillions more before people will finally get it. And it's so simple, actually, just take a look at Gregor Mendel's experiments, Mendel, the pious monk. If that won't prove that evolution is NOT random, nothing will.

2. "I knew these scientific experiments had to exist that tested the premise of animals passing on life’s experiences to their offspring. To my shock, disgust and amazement there were none. Not even one." - there are more flaws in this one. First, it considers that getting a tan is a "life experience", subliminally attributing it to the "immaterial" that we will tackle later on. It couldn't be more material than that, really, and it is actually passed on, but after many many generations of constant exposer to sun (what do you know, there are Black people). Second, there ARE experiments on this regard, but not what the author wants. He was rather looking for something like the Bene Gesserit's passing on of knowledge and experience, in Frank Herbert's Dune. Which, until now, is not possible.

3. "When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations" - After reading this, I concluded that the authors are either completely ignorant to their field of expertise, or has a hidden agenda. This article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2120/is_n6_v79/ai_21164753/pg_1) should explain everything.

4. "It shows the non-physical creates the physical" - Which non-physical created which physical? Was it the reaction of fear of predators? That is non-physical? Riiiiiiiiiiight... Once again, the author is either ignorant, or has a hidden agenda

5. "It shows the non-physical codes the information in the DNA structure" - it shows nothing on the lines of that. The article posted above explains it. It does, however, take a person a lot more serious than a creationist to realize and explain that.

6. "It shows that the non-physical is the unit of inheritance. It’s these non-physical signals that code the genetic states that get passed on from generation to generation. This, of course, is blasphomy 101 for the evolutionist….but have you ever wondered why kids often come out looking and acting like their parents and grandparents? It’s because they are simply the physical seed that’s been encoded by their parent’s non-physical mental, emotional and spiritual signals." - the premise is wrong here, the non-physical doesn't code. The so-called non-physical the author is referring to is actually a simple physical reflex arc, or thoughts forming as an organized electric storm in the brain. Nothing more physical than that

7. "It shows there is no need for natural selection for new traits to spread throughout a population; that evolution happens horizontally before it happens vertically" - I don't remember anyone denying that evolution DOESN'T happen horizontally at first... The author has tried to imply that non-physical is enough to spread a certain character, but he failed to do that in the following posts. We know that non-physical does NOT affect DNA (because, until now, there are no "genetic memories", or even passing on of experiences to the offspring, and when I sa experiences I refer to experiences that do not require physically adapting to) Therefore, point moot

8. "It shows a new or mutated gene is not necessary for the emergence and inheritance of new traits" - we've known that since the time of Mendel. Nobody that knows genetics disagrees with that

9. "It shows the whole manipulates and controls its parts" - well d'oooooh. What would be the purpose of an organism if it didn't do that? And don't tell me you had no idea about this (addressing the author). Consider taking out a spleen in somebody, or his/her tonsils. There are other organs that take over their "chores". This has been known from medieval times. Don't tell me it's only now that you found out.

10. "It backs up The Bible and Genesis by showing humans – and every other animal -- got here not by way of millions of years of physical accidents, but instead, instantly, as a result of special creation by way of a non-physical, intellectual reality" - non-sequitur. In all the ranting, presuming that the author is 100% correct up to now, he doesn't prove anything else but an "alternative" evolution, not through natural selection, but through generation and transmission of characteristics out of necessity. Actually, the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. But there was no God involved in his (admittedly flawed) demonstration.

 

Hope that's fine.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: What

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

What you posted, Maragon, has several quite big flaws.

 I think that was Maragon's point by posting it, to mock the many flaws. It took me a couple read throughs to realize the sarcasm dripping from her post's subject. And I would have to agree with Maragon, the articles points are depressingly ignorant. 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think that was

Quote:
I think that was Maragon's point by posting it, to mock the many flaws. It took me a couple read throughs to realize the sarcasm dripping from her post's subject. And I would have to agree with Maragon, the articles points are depressingly ignorant.

Undoubtedly.

 

There is one more thing I forgot to post: the whole article indirectly implies that souls actually exist. Then, it goes on to demonstrate that souls have an effect. Well, wouldn't you know it...

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Personally I like it. the

Personally I like it. the conclusion of the concept is marvelous

Just imagine you've got wings, grow some. without all that tedious mucking around with evolution. and save a fortune by not having to buy airplane tickets. it's wonderful

 


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Thanks a ton Rigor, that was

Thanks a ton Rigor, that was fantastic.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote:...It became

Maragon wrote:
...It became clear that the Big science was hiding something; a terrible secret…the secret every biologist certainly knew but never dared mention: epigenetic inheritance of life's experiences was a reality.

First, railing against the scientific establishment is a hallmark of pseudo-science. Second, the term epigenetic inheritance sounds too technical to be something he just came up with to describe Bible-based creationist interpretations, and in fact it is not. This is the tactic of finding something obscure in science in the hopes that unfamiliarity of the audience will lead us to allow him to interpret it for us. In fact, there is science studying epigenetics, and none of it supports what he's saying. I doubt if he was going to mention that little inconvenient fact though. (Note that the Wikipedia article cites numerous scientific journals like Nature)

Maragon wrote:
1) It shows the non-physical creates the physical. (By non-physical, I don’t care if this means “of the mind,” “mental,” “spiritual,” “mystical,” or whatever else. The point is that the physical is created and manipulated by a non-physical entity residing in each organism.)

It does no such thing. It just means that there may be more routes to inheritance than just DNA. He hasn't done anything to rule out other physical mechanisms.

Maragon wrote:
2) It shows the non-physical codes the information in the DNA structure. (Everyone wondered where the information that resides in DNA comes from….now we know.)

Absurd, as above.

Maragon wrote:
3.) It shows that the non-physical is the unit of inheritance. It’s these non-physical signals that code the genetic states that get passed on from generation to generation. This, of course, is blasphomy 101 for the evolutionist….but have you ever wondered why kids often come out looking and acting like their parents and grandparents? It’s because they are simply the physical seed that’s been encoded by their parent’s non-physical mental, emotional and spiritual signals.

This just gets into more and more absurd conclusions.

Maragon wrote:
4) It shows there is no need for natural selection for new traits to spread throughout a population; that evolution happens horizontally before it happens vertically.

Which mechanism happens first needs to be studied, you can't assume that just because there is another mechanism it must be used first. From the sounds of these mechanisms, they are very limited, and probably made possible by genetic traits.

Maragon wrote:
5) It shows a new or mutated gene is not necessary for the emergence and inheritance of new traits.

The only things he has presented are possible responses the bodies of living organisms are able to produce. The possibility itself is probably genetically coded.

Maragon wrote:
6) It shows the whole manipulates and controls its parts. Materialists say all evolution happens as a result of random alterations of genetic structure; that accidental changes in parts create new and different wholes….in reality it’s the purposeful and intellectual processes of wholes that creates new and different parts. This flips everything about biology on its head -- including the fossil record; it turns a process that would take millions of years into a process that takes a blink of an eye.

It should be no great surprise that the whole manipulates the parts. We've known for a long time that organisms coordinate their activities using hormones, chemical and electric signal, etc. But those possible responses are limited and defined genetically. Just because a bug may be capable of growing protective spines doesn't mean that I can. I don't have the requisite genetic traits, and therefore I am incapable of producing that response. And the fossil record itself tells us that the changes didn't occur in the blink of the eye, as inconvenient as it is for creationists.

Maragon wrote:
7) It backs up The Bible and Genesis by showing humans – and every other animal -- got here not by way of millions of years of physical accidents, but instead, instantly, as a result of special creation by way of a non-physical, intellectual reality.

Whoa, watch out, here comes the Bible. Where did that come from, really? So if this were true, how would we explain all these inconvenient fossils?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Epigenetics,

Textom wrote:

Epigenetics, as described in the Discover article (link is broken btw) talks about how the environment can cause a gene to turn on or off. It's still the physical effect of the environment acting on the physical structures of the DNA. The new finding is that the *expression* of the gene can cross generations without actually changing the genetic structure. You still can't think yourself darker skin, and it's definitely not evidence of a magic man controlling your hair color.

Could you, Textom, or anyone else, point me to good online/printed information about Epigenetics that you have read, please?

 

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Darth Josh's post above has

Darth Josh's post above has the working link to the Discover Magazine article mentioned in the first post.  It has a couple of good paragraphs that describe epigenetics (and those two paragraphs represent, incidentally, my first exposure to the idea, although it makes immediate sense to me in the context of what I know about evolutionary biology).

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Disclosure: I didn't read

Disclosure: I didn't read the Discover article (just this thread), I'm just piggy-backing on the expertise of those in the forum.

Textom wrote:
Epigenetics, as described in the Discover article (link is broken btw) talks about how the environment can cause a gene to turn on or off. It's still the physical effect of the environment acting on the physical structures of the DNA.

So how is, "the physical effect of the environment acting on the physical structures of the DNA" explained? Is it chemical? Something like: an experience causes the brain to release special chemicals which in turn cause particular sections of code to be read that would not normally be read?

Textom wrote:
The new finding is that the *expression* of the gene can cross generations without actually changing the genetic structure.

Still, there must be some method by which the *expression* is conveyed to the new generation. Perhaps this is where the article writer is trying to interject the non-physical?

darth_josh wrote:
In fact, during gestation and subsequently nursing phases of mammalian development pass on some immunities to diseases and hormones that can significantly change the way the genes are read.

Do similar things happen in simpler life forms? Again, perhaps this is where the article writer wanted to interject the non-physical.

Thanks.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey

jive turkey wrote:

Disclosure: I didn't read the Discover article (just this thread), I'm just piggy-backing on the expertise of those in the forum.

So how is, "the physical effect of the environment acting on the physical structures of the DNA" explained? Is it chemical? Something like: an experience causes the brain to release special chemicals which in turn cause particular sections of code to be read that would not normally be read?

Yeah, it's chemical. It doesn't necessarily have to be something in the brain causing the release of a chemical that activates the gene--it could be something in the environment acting directly without the intervention of brain chemicals.

jive turkey wrote:

Still, there must be some method by which the *expression* is conveyed to the new generation. Perhaps this is where the article writer is trying to interject the non-physical?

As I understand it, the developing organism inherits the activated gene from the parent with the activated gene. Nothing non-physical about that.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert